Keystone pipeline leak estimate grows to 16,800 gallons of oil

a reply to: Grimpachi

While I don't know about that particular company, or their record, I do not understand how it would be difficult to inspect the inside of the pipeline. How hard would it be to put a camera on a pipeline pig? Pretty dang easy actually. Maybe they should be forced to do so? Regularly.

originally posted by: caterpillage
And as such is still a better alternative than shipping the oil on tank cars via the railroad. A typical railroad tanker holds 23,000 gallons, and when they mess up it usually involves more than one and they spread it over a wider area. And it usually ignites.


The keystone pipeline is more environmentally friendly and more efficient overall than rail shipments.

Thankyou OP for bringing this to light to show the advantages!

They could build the refinery near the source, this is about money.

a reply to: chiefsmom

Putting a camera in there shouldn't be too hard, but for it to be worth while that tube has to be empty because you can't see through oil.

For it to be empty you have to shut down the entire pipeline first and evacuate all the oil out of it and we are talking about over a thousand mile of pipeline.

How often do you think they will do that? It certainly isn't an easy task and is costly, but they are not required to do that. What they do is check segments of the line and estimate the wear and tear on the rest. The oil they are pumping is the most corrosive kind so it will spill at some point there is no question about that the only question is when.

a reply to: caterpillage

Hmm. It comes out of the ground, and it's bad for the Earth. Strange.

I hope you are joking. Plutonium comes from the ground also lead and many other things you don't want just anywhere.

a reply to: Grimpachi

So, the fault also lies in whomever is in control of the regulations for these pipelines, (or lack thereof) for not requiring this to be done, every 6 months to a year.
Sure, it may be costly to shut down for a while, but you would think that it would be cheaper, than paying fines for leaks. Unless there are no fines?

Then there should be. Outrageously expensive fines.

a reply to: chiefsmom

The fines they receive are nothing to them comparing the money they get in subsidies.


Their lobbyists have made it so it is a win-win for them.

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: caterpillage

Hmm. It comes out of the ground, and it's bad for the Earth. Strange.

I hope you are joking. Plutonium comes from the ground also lead and many other things you don't want just anywhere.

Plutonium and lead are already everywhere. Your exposed daily part of living on planet earth.

originally posted by: chiefsmom
a reply to: Grimpachi

So, the fault also lies in whomever is in control of the regulations for these pipelines, (or lack thereof) for not requiring this to be done, every 6 months to a year.
Sure, it may be costly to shut down for a while, but you would think that it would be cheaper, than paying fines for leaks. Unless there are no fines?

Then there should be. Outrageously expensive fines.

US department of transportation has guidelines in place all companies must operate by.